Klansman, redneck or whatever they identify with, have always taken a liken to ethnic women of color, The master never went to the slave bungalows, he demanded them to be brought to him. History speaks of this. Strom Thurmond is the perfect example, nothing new.

What was/is the marriage rate among Klan members to minorities?

An unknown history brought to vivid light

Then I read “Wench,” a 2010 debut historical novel by Dolen Perkins-Valdez.

[...]

This is just one of many author's account of such actions. I'm very sure some of them were identified with a hate group such as the Klansmen.

This misses the point. I believe that masters have "jumped the fence" to the slave quarters since the first person was enslaved. I don't disagree with that.

However, I don't believe that Mitch McConnell was alive during that time, and I don't believe that any Klan members married minorities and stayed in good standing with their community for long. Mitch is openly married to a minority member; he doesn't seek to hide it, which is a fairly good indicator that he doesn't have a Klansman attitude, imho. Perhaps you have some other, more convincing examples of his behavior to support your opinion.

The Propagandist wrote:Republicans have been the ones blocking anything from getting done in the Senate by using the filibuster. Democrats don't have 60 votes to break a filibuster if not at least six Republicans go against their party line and vote with the Democrats.

Your statements are still not correct. Republicans can't control the senate until they have 51 members. Democrats have controlled the senate since Jan of '07.

The filibuster is the sole leverage the minority party has against the strong arm tactics of the majority. Compromise is a foreign concept with the Democrats. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster but not to pass a bill. It only takes 51 votes to pass a bill. The Democrats seem to be oblivious of this simple fact.

Not all bills are subject to filibuster either. [Like naming post offices and days in honor of some well-known back in the district?] Those bills do get done and prove your statement "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done"false once again.

So when are the Democrats going to stop being the ones blocking anything from getting done in the Senate and join the 45 Republicans? It only takes 6 of them to go against their party and vote with the Republicans.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”― George W. Bush

Not all bills are subject to filibuster either. [Like naming post offices and days in honor of some well-known back in the district?] Those bills do get done and prove your statement "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done"false once again.

Your statement is still false. Your blue insert isn't covered by Senate rules. You need to become familiar with the terms "filibuster" and "reconciliation".

Not all bills are subject to filibuster either. [Like naming post offices and days in honor of some well-known back in the district?] Those bills do get done and prove your statement "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done"false once again.

Your statement is still false. Your blue insert isn't covered by Senate rules. You need to become familiar with the terms "filibuster" and "reconciliation".

Not all bills are subject to filibuster either. [Like naming post offices and days in honor of some well-known back in the district?] Those bills do get done and prove your statement "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done"false once again.

Your statement is still false. Your blue insert isn't covered by Senate rules. You need to become familiar with the terms "filibuster" and "reconciliation".

Ranger06 wrote:Not all bills are subject to filibuster either. [Like naming post offices and days in honor of some well-known back in the district?] Those bills do get done and prove your statement "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done"false once again.

Ranger06 wrote: Your blue insert isn't covered by Senate rules.

I was just agreeing with you that "not all bills are subject to filibuster." Nobody usually objects to those things, so filibuster isn't even part of the discussion.

Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-Ala.) decision to place a "blanket hold" on all presidential nominations until a pair of billion-dollar earmarks for his home state are fast-tracked has reignited the debate over the parliamentary tactics being deployed by the Republican Party.

On Thursday evening, news broke that the Alabama Republican has taken the extraordinary measure of holding up at least 70 "nominations on the Senate calendar" -- essentially threatening to filibuster the confirmation processes if they came to a vote. The move has spurred a series of recriminations from Democratic officials who see it as yet another instance of over-the-top obstructionism of the president's agenda.

Briefing reporters on Friday morning, white House Press Secretary Roberts Gibbs called Shelby's actions to strongest reflection to date of how badly Washington is broken.

"I guess if you needed one example of what's wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold up 70 qualified individuals to make government work better because he didn't get his earmarks," Gibbs said. "If that's not the poster child for how this town needs to change the way it works, I fear there won't be a greater example of silliness throughout the entire year of 2010."

The Propagandist wrote:[color=#0000FF]I was just agreeing with you that "not all bills are subject to filibuster." Nobody usually objects to those things, so filibuster isn't even part of the discussion.

Those items you mentioned can be stopped by a filibuster just as nominations can. Holding up nominations for some pet cause goes way back. However, your statement of "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done" is still false. The senate rules are very specific where filibuster doesn't apply.

Not all bills are subject to filibuster either. [Like naming post offices and days in honor of some well-known back in the district?] Those bills do get done and prove your statement "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done"false once again.

Your statement is still false. Your blue insert isn't covered by Senate rules. You need to become familiar with the terms "filibuster" and "reconciliation".

The Propagandist wrote:I was just agreeing with you that "not all bills are subject to filibuster." Nobody usually objects to those things, so filibuster isn't even part of the discussion.

Those items you mentioned can be stopped by a filibuster just as nominations can. Holding up nominations for some pet cause goes way back. However, your statement of "If Democrats don't have 60 votes, nothing gets done" is still false. The senate rules are very specific where filibuster doesn't apply.

Reconcile these two statements of yours:

"Those items you mentioned can be stopped by a filibuster just as nominations can."

"The senate rules are very specific where filibuster doesn't apply."

That the motion to adjournusually isn't a debatable question may be your only saving point.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”― George W. Bush